Fully-Booked: Literary Podcast

• Why The Da Vinci Code Movie Bombed: Our Hilarious Rewatch And Hot Takes

  We kick off with the hosts’ cheerful greeting and their confession that they recorded the Fully-Booked: Literary Podcast ahead of schedule, joking that it is “the last week of June… but not really.” They remind us that June on Fully-Booked has been all about banned books, and they want to finish with something big.While scanning international censorship lists, Meaghan notices that The Da Vinci Code has been pulled from shelves in Lebanon, India, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and the Philippines. The reason is simple enough: some Christian leaders find the novel’s ideas offensive.Shirin admits she did not realize Lebanon has such a large Christian population, and the pair laugh at their own ignorance before pivoting to the film version they are about to rewatch. They also poke fun at their ongoing knack for picking “the worst movie adaptation possible,” a running joke that keeps listeners feeling part of an inside circle.Revisiting The Da Vinci Code: Book Hype, Film Fever, and Worldwide UproarWe move from playful chit-chat to the cultural moment of 2003, when Dan Brown’s novel exploded onto every bookstore display.The hosts recall how the familiar red hardcover stamped with a sliver of the Mona Lisa seemed to stare you down in every airport. Within two years, the book had sold tens of millions of copies, appeared in forty-plus languages, and sparked feverish speculation about secret societies, coded messages, and a hidden bloodline of Christ.And Hollywood pounced. In 2006, Ron Howard delivered a glossy blockbuster starring Tom Hanks, Alfred Molina, Ian McKellen, and Paul Bettany. At the time, Shirin remembers thinking the movie was “the shit,” full of twists that felt like National Treasure with better haircuts.Yet outside a Boston theater on opening night, she saw live protests, something a Canadian teenager did not expect on a school trip. That mash-up of box-office buzz and genuine outrage fascinates the hosts; it proves a thriller can still hit raw nerves when it challenges sacred stories.National Treasure, Nicolas Cage, and Tangents We Can’t ResistBecause no Fully-Booked episode is complete without at least one joyful detour, we zoom off to Shirin’s devotion to National Treasure.She owns a T-shirt with Nicolas Cage’s face, and the declaration “I’m gonna steal the Declaration,” makes her husband watch the film annually and defend its goofy charm at every opportunity.Meaghan, who once watched the movie constantly with her mother, agrees it is “terrible but fun.” Comparing ratings, they discover that Cage’s romp actually edges out The Da Vinci Code on Rotten Tomatoes, an outcome they find both hilarious and strangely satisfying.This lighthearted break matters. It shows how personal nostalgia shapes our judgment. Sometimes we cling to a so-so movie because it reminds us of family vacations or Friday sleepovers, not because it is a cinematic masterpiece. We feel that tug, too; I still grin whenever I hear Cage whisper “I’m going to steal it,” and I suspect many listeners have a similar guilty-pleasure favorite.Characters, Plot Holes, and Why the Film Falls FlatBack to business: the hosts dissect why the 2006 adaptation drags. First, length.At two-and-a-half hours, it spread over three separate viewing sessions in Meaghan’s living room. Second, plausibility.The victim supposedly staggers through the Louvre after being shot in the gut, leaving a breadcrumb trail of riddles in his own blood, yet still has the mental clarity to craft a sophisticated code. We agree with the hosts that this stretches believability to comic levels; our stomach hurts just imagining the crawl, never mind the cryptography. Third, character depth.In the book, Sophie Neveu is a brilliant police cryptographer; on screen, she turns doe-eyed, waiting for Robert Langdon to solve everything. Tom Hanks, lovable as ever, cannot overcome a script that reduces side characters to exposition machines.It feels as if a longer, richer draft was chopped down by anxious studio editors trying to hit a release date. The result is a movie that teaches the audience how to Google but forgets to give its heroine agency. We nod along when the hosts groan, “This person who’s this intelligent would not act like that.”Final Thoughts: Rating Rants, Unfinished Franchises, and What Comes NextWrapping up, the hosts admit they wanted to love the film. They felt a pang of nostalgia, hitting play, wishing the old rush of “twist on every page” would return.Instead, they found themselves pausing for snacks, baby duties, and the occasional disbelief-fuelled rant. Rotten Tomatoes sits at a meager 25 percent critic score, and once the hosts read that aloud, they cannot unsee the flaws.Meanwhile, Angels and Demons and Inferno limp on with the same creative team but never reclaim the lightning in a bottle. Even a short-lived TV spin-off, The Lost Symbol, failed to survive past one season.The conversation closes with laughter, apologies to any die-hard fans, and a promise that Meaghan will choose next month’s adaptations more carefully. The bigger takeaway is relatable: we all remember a book or movie that blew our adolescent minds, only to find it wobbly on rewatch.The hosts show us it’s okay to change our minds, poke fun at past tastes, and still respect the cultural storm a story once created. As we finish, we feel like we sat on the couch with two friends who love books, love movies, and love cracking jokes about both, exactly the kind of company we crave when the credits roll.

  --------  

  34:21

  --------

  34:21
• Why These 10 Books Were The Most Banned And Why That Should Worry You

  We started the Fully-Booked Podcast episode with some personal updates and our latest reads. Meaghan had just finished The Housemaid by Freida McFadden, a fast-paced thriller that she found both fun and perplexing in terms of what to expect from its sequels. She mentioned how Shirin tends to dive into one author's entire catalogue when she discovers a book she enjoys, and this time it was her turn to follow suit.Shirin, on the other hand, had just wrapped up Sunrise on the Reaping, the most recent Hunger Games novel. Neither of us is a die-hard fan of the series, but we both appreciated certain elements, especially when previous entries focused on characters like President Snow.Shirin noted that while the book was fine, it felt repetitive, echoing Katniss’ journey in the original trilogy. She admitted she might not have read it had the movie already been out, highlighting how closely these books and films tend to mirror each other.The ALA’s 2024 Challenged Book DataThe main focus of this episode was the alarming increase in book censorship across North America, especially in the United States. Shirin had been diving into data from the American Library Association (ALA), and the numbers were staggering. In 2024 alone, there were 4,190 book titles challenged, mostly pushed by pressure groups and influenced decision-makers, not just concerned parents. For context, from 2001 to 2020, an average of only 46 titles were challenged each year.What really stood out was how the nature of these censorship efforts had shifted. Back in the early 2000s, only 6% of challenges came from organized groups. In 2024, that number skyrocketed to 72%. Most of the targeted books contained LGBTQ+ themes, racial identity, social justice, or stories of personal trauma and coming-of-age.This prompted us to ask: Why are people so threatened by lived experience, empathy, and diversity in storytelling? It seems that instead of aiming to protect children, these groups are trying to erase stories that reflect the reality of many people's lives.Exploring The Top 10 Most Challenged BooksWe broke down the top 10 most challenged books of 2024, and unsurprisingly, they shared common themes; queer identity, racial struggle, gender exploration, addiction, and trauma.Books like All Boys Aren’t Blue by George M. Johnson and Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe were high on the list, both memoirs focused on LGBTQ+ identity. We also saw classic literary staples still getting flak, The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison being one of them, which surprised us because it's been around since 1970. Apparently, we’re still not ready to have honest conversations about race.Titles like Looking for Alaska, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, and Me and Earl and the Dying Girl were also included, all of which cover complex teenage emotions and situations: suicide, sexuality, and death. Other books like Crank and Sold dealt with heavy, real-world issues like drug addiction and human trafficking.We asked each other: What exactly are people afraid of here? Why is it seen as dangerous to talk about these subjects when they’re happening in real life? It feels absurd to ban a story about a teen struggling with meth because it might "influence" readers, when in fact these stories can educate and offer emotional insight. The irony is almost unbearable.The Situation in CanadaWhile the U.S. tends to get most of the attention in these discussions, we didn’t let Canada off the hook. Meaghan brought up that even here, we’re seeing a troubling rise in book challenges. In 2024, 119 titles were challenged, with another 30 already flagged in early 2025. The primary reasons echoed those in the U.S., objections to LGBTQ+ themes, “explicit” content, and gender diversity.The data came from the Canadian Library Challenges Database, which is backed by Toronto Metropolitan University’s Centre for Free Expression. A lot of the concerns were about age appropriateness, but even that excuse feels like a smokescreen for discomfort with difference.However, there was a silver lining. BookNet Canada reported that LGBTQ+ fiction sales actually rose by 34% in the last quarter of 2024. Clearly, when you try to silence something, it can make people even more curious. People want stories that represent who they are, and thankfully, we’re in a time where those books are being written, published, and read.The Power of Storytelling and RepresentationThis episode ultimately came down to a shared belief in the importance of storytelling and the power of representation. We reflected on how bookstores and libraries are fighting back. Displays of banned books are becoming more common, and institutions like Barnes & Noble and public libraries are leaning into the controversy by highlighting these works.Nearly half of public libraries now offer banned book displays, up 15% since 2020. Publishers also continue to support these stories, showing there’s still a demand, and that matters. If publishers stopped backing these authors, then we’d really be in trouble.We ended by reaffirming that censorship doesn’t protect, it stifles. If someone finds a topic uncomfortable, they can choose not to read it. That’s their right. But trying to take that right away from others? That’s not okay.In the end, we were fired up, but hopeful. Because for every book banned, there’s a reader who finds it and feels seen. That’s the kind of power stories have, and that’s worth protecting.

  --------  

  23:02

  --------

  23:02
• Why Was Water for Elephants Banned? We Still Don’t Get It

  We kicked off this Fully-Booked Podcast episode by sticking with our June theme: banned books. And this time, we focused on one that left us scratching our heads: Water for Elephants by Sara Gruen.The 2006 novel was recently banned in Utah’s public schools under House Bill 29, which allows parents to challenge books they consider “sensitive material.” If three school districts or charter schools agree, the book can be pulled statewide. That’s how Water for Elephants landed on the list, although, to be honest, we still don’t quite get why.We couldn't find a solid answer despite digging around. It’s not overtly graphic, political, or controversial in any standout way, so its ban feels baffling. That confusion is what actually sparked our whole Banned Books Month in the first place. We figured, if this book can be banned, what else is on these lists?Water for Elephants StoryThe book was adapted into a movie in 2011, starring Robert Pattinson, Reese Witherspoon, and Christoph Waltz. It was set during the Great Depression and follows Jacob Jankowski, a Polish-American veterinary student at Cornell. Just as he’s about to graduate, tragedy strikes: both his parents die in a car accident. Jacob loses his home, his inheritance, and any hope of finishing his studies.With nowhere to go, Jacob hops on a passing train, which turns out to belong to a struggling traveling circus, the Benzini Brothers. From there, the story unfolds into a tale of hardship, romance, and survival under the big top. He meets Marlena, the circus’s star performer, who’s married to the charismatic yet increasingly violent ringmaster, August.What makes the movie unique is the addition of Rosie, a 53-year-old elephant brought in as the circus's new attraction. Rosie doesn’t initially respond to commands, and August abuses her, thinking she’s unintelligent. But Jacob discovers Rosie understands Polish, his native language, and with that breakthrough, he forms a bond with her.Behind the Scenes and Onscreen ChemistryWatching the film together, we had mixed feelings. The production value was solid; the costumes, set design, and overall look captured the Depression era beautifully. The acting was generally good, but we both agreed that the chemistry between Pattinson and Witherspoon felt flat. It wasn’t bad, just kind of…there. You understood they were supposed to fall in love, but you didn’t feel it.We even joked that this wasn’t a steamy Notebook-level romance. There was one sex scene, and it happened while they were on the run for their lives, which felt oddly timed, to say the least. It didn’t ruin the film, but it did make us question why that specific element might've been enough to get the book banned.Cultural ContextOne part of the discussion that hit close to home was about migration and cultural mindsets during the Depression. Jacob's story of traveling cross-country for work reflects a very American attitude of chasing opportunity. We compared that with how, in Canada, people generally don’t move provinces nearly as much, partly because of climate and geography.The circus in Water for Elephants operates on razor-thin margins. It picks up and moves within a day or two, requiring hundreds of people to maintain operations. August’s cutthroat management style is framed as necessary for survival in such tough times, but it quickly becomes clear he’s also a violent narcissist who physically and emotionally abuses both Marlena and the animals.The final twist of the story involves Rosie killing August during a chaotic night that leads to the downfall of the Benzini Brothers Circus. Marlena and Jacob escape, start a new life with Rosie, join the Ringling Brothers, and eventually settle down in Albany. Jacob becomes a vet, and they raise a family with Rosie by their side for decades.The story is told in flashbacks by an elderly Jacob, now in a nursing home. He ends the story by joining a modern circus, wanting to return to a life that once gave him purpose.So, Why Was It Banned?We still don’t have an answer. Animal cruelty is depicted, sure, but as part of the plot, not glamorized. There’s a single implied steamy scene. Maybe it’s the adultery subplot? Maybe the violence? But plenty of books in school libraries touch on all of those. We’re left wondering if the ban is more about optics than content.Shirin suggested the book’s banning was probably triggered by vague complaints, "inappropriate content" or "sensitive material", without clear definitions. Meaghan pointed out that Utah’s law allows just three school districts to challenge and remove a book across the entire state. That’s a low bar for sweeping censorship.We both acknowledged that this doesn’t mean Water for Elephants is inaccessible to the general public in Utah. It's still available in libraries, bookstores, and of course, online. But within schools, it’s off the table, and that’s a concern.Wrapping Up With QuestionsWe closed the episode reflecting on how this experience made us rethink censorship and what gets flagged. If something like Water for Elephants can be banned, what else could be?We brought up A Court of Thorns and Roses (ACOTAR) by Sarah J. Maas, which is a bit spicier but realistically would never be assigned in schools to begin with. We joked that if someone thinks ACOTAR is too much, they haven’t seen the rest of the iceberg in the romance genre.We also laughed about the trend of big-name actors headlining these types of adaptations in the early 2010s. You had Reese, Robert, and Christoph, big names with big budgets. Today, the format has shifted. Book-to-film adaptations often hit streaming first, and casting doesn’t always go for top-tier stars. It’s a shift that’s changed the dynamic of how we experience these stories.And finally, we turned the question back to you: why do you think Water for Elephants was banned? Because we’ve read the book, watched the movie, and talked about it for over an hour, and we’re still stumped...

  --------  

  35:01

  --------

  35:01
• Why Banning Books Never Works (And Makes Us Want to Read Them More)

  We kicked off this Fully-Booked podcast episode like we often do, talking about the weather. June arrived, and with it came all the seasonal chaos we Canadians know too well. One moment we’re soaking in rays, and the next, we’re back to complaining about rain or trying to survive sudden temperature spikes. It’s the kind of weather where someone might wear a parka with flip-flops and somehow not look out of place.We laughed about how 10 degrees feels completely different in spring versus fall. In spring, we’re peeling off layers like it’s beach season, but in the fall, the same temperature has us reaching for cozy sweaters. It doesn’t make sense, but that’s Canada for you.Banned Books And Why They Still MatterThe main theme this month? Banned books. We decided it was time to shift from the more playful, game-style episodes and dig into something that matters on a cultural and intellectual level. This decision came after a quick text exchange about a new banned books article. Once we got into the topic, it opened up a floodgate of questions, ideas, and frustrations.We started by asking a simple but loaded question: What is a banned book?Technically, it's any book that’s been restricted or removed from access in certain schools, libraries, or communities. But what is it really? Censorship. And often, it’s censorship rooted in fear of ideas, of diversity, of history.From classics like 1984 and To Kill a Mockingbird to more recent works like All Boys Aren’t Blue and The Hate U Give, the reasons books get banned often come down to who’s uncomfortable with their message.It’s honestly baffling. When you look at a list of banned books, you start to notice patterns. So many of these works are centered on themes like rebellion, personal freedom, or confronting injustice, especially from governments or powerful institutions.Others touch on race, gender, sexuality, or trauma. In other words, they deal with real life. Books like The Handmaid’s Tale, The Diary of Anne Frank, Animal Farm, and Slaughterhouse-Five come up again and again. And that should make all of us pause. Why are these stories, the ones that challenge systems or amplify marginalized voices, the ones most often targeted?The Larger Conversation: Why Banning Books Is FutileWe dug deeper into the implications of banning literature. We talked about books being banned for obscenity in the past, like Lady Chatterley's Lover or Lolita, and more recent bans centered on issues like race, gender identity, or historical events.What struck us most was how many of these bans seemed designed to suppress not just stories, but the lived experiences of real people. Books like The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian or I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings are being challenged because they don’t fit a specific moral or political agenda.We also brought up examples from Canadian history, like the banning of Lethal Marriage, a book about the Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka case, which was allegedly pulled for its inaccuracies. That led to a nuanced discussion about the difference between censoring historical artifacts and correcting misinformation. We’re not saying every book should be protected no matter what; it’s more about the intent and impact behind the banning.One of the more compelling questions we asked was this: If these books are so “dangerous,” why are they still so widely read? Because banning something often makes it more intriguing. You tell a teenager they’re not allowed to read The Catcher in the Rye, and that book jumps to the top of their list. The same goes for Fahrenheit 451, a book literally about burning books. There’s an irony in banning it that’s almost too obvious to be real.And with digital access being what it is, how do you realistically ban a book anymore? Even if you pull it from a shelf, people can download it in seconds. Instead of trying to restrict access, wouldn’t it make more sense to use these books as tools for education and discussion?Why This Matters More Than EverWe finished the episode by circling back to the bigger picture. If stories help build empathy, and we believe they do, then banning them does the opposite. It fosters ignorance. It promotes exclusion. It tries to erase perspectives that don’t align with the dominant narrative. And that’s dangerous.We talked about the current political climate and how certain groups, especially in the U.S., are trying to control what young people read. And while we can joke about things like Walter the Farting Dog being banned (seriously, why?), the truth is a lot of these censorship efforts come from a place of fear and control. We were honest about it, some of these bans are not just misguided, they’re harmful.Ultimately, we don’t think banning books prevents anything. In fact, it probably does the opposite. When we were younger and found out there were books people didn’t want us to read, we hunted them down. We read them with even more interest. That curiosity doesn’t go away, and the more you try to shut it down, the more persistent it becomes.So yeah, we’re kicking off the month talking about banned books. And we’re going to keep going. In the next few episodes, we’ll dig into some of these titles more closely and talk about what makes them so important and why people keep trying to silence them. We’re also hoping to bring in a few more voices to the conversation. Maybe even Sirin's mom (who’s already deep in The Housemaid) because we know she’ll have thoughts.And yes, we know this episode went off the rails at points, especially when we somehow got from banned books to porn. But hey, this is us. This is how we think, how we process, and how we connect with each other. And if there’s one thing we’re sure of, it’s that stories matter. They always have, and they always will.

  --------  

  37:26

  --------

  37:26
• Welcome to Derry: Can HBO's IT Prequel Avoid Feeling Like a Reboot?

  We started off with a quick update: Meaghan and Arthur are trying out a new recording setup for the Fully-Booked Podcast and, like any of us facing tech upgrades, are crossing their fingers that it behaves itself. From there, they leaned into their end-of-May tradition of a more casual, "free-for-all" episode format. It’s their chance to have fun, try different things, and bring up topics they might not usually squeeze into a themed episode.IT Welcome to Derry and Stephen King's Expanding UniverseThen came the meat of the conversation: the new HBO series IT Welcome to Derry. The trailer just dropped, and while it didn’t give us a release date (other than the vague “Fall 2025”), it did get Meaghan and Arthur talking about the direction this prequel might take.They noted the show's pedigree, with Andy and Barbara Muschietti (the sibling team behind the modern IT films) involved, and speculated on how the series might expand the IT universe. Both hosts agreed that the original IT story has a very clear endpoint, Pennywise is defeated, so a prequel has to find clever ways to build tension and keep things fresh. They tossed around ideas about time jumps, exploring different eras of Derry, or focusing on the evil that lives in the town itself.Arthur was quick to point out that IT works so well because it's not about superheroes; it's about ordinary people facing unimaginable horrors. That relatability makes the fear hit harder. They both agreed that Stephen King is a master at spotlighting how the real villains are often the adults, indifferent, abusive, or just willfully blind to what's happening around them.Trailer Takeaways and Concerns About RepetitionWhen they turned to the actual IT Welcome to Derry trailer, they both had mixed feelings. Visually, it's spot on, creepy, unsettling, and full of that “Derry atmosphere.” You know, the kind of unsettling small-town vibe where everything looks normal on the surface but clearly isn’t. But here's the catch: a lot of the trailer felt familiar.Like, maybe a little too familiar.Shots of kids peering into sinks, mysterious voices in the pipes, and a new version of the “Losers Club” forming, it all mirrors scenes we've seen before. Arthur joked (half-seriously) that if this new group has a nickname, it’s going to feel painfully forced. They understand that the 27-year cycle within the IT lore sets the stage for repeated patterns, but they hope the show brings something new to the table.One aspect that did catch their attention was the possibility of new characters, particularly a young family that moves into Derry and starts to question what's going on. That could add some interesting outside perspective to a town where the residents usually ignore or forget the horror around them.Symbolism, Theories, and King’s Giant Connected UniverseFrom there, things got a little nerdy in the best way. Arthur and Meaghan dove into numerology, specifically the significance of the number 27. It shows up in the IT mythos a lot, and not by accident. They discussed how 27 is 3 cubed and how Stephen King often uses the number three in symbolic ways, particularly in his Dark Tower series.Then came the deeper cuts: the theory that Pennywise is a creature from the Todash Darkness, a space between worlds in The Dark Tower universe. They talked about how IT could be one of the Crimson King’s agents, and how this ties into King’s sprawling multiverse. It’s all interconnected. Pennywise isn’t just a scary clown; he's a shape-shifting entity possibly connected to even larger evils.Meaghan brought up the infamous 27 Club, musicians and artists who died at 27 years of age. Additionally, they marveled at how the 1990 IT miniseries aired 27 years before the 2017 film. Whether all of that is a coincidence or not, it adds a layer of spookiness to the whole franchise.They also explored how IT Welcome to Derry is set in 1962, which is exactly 27 years before the 1989 setting of IT: Chapter One. That opens the door to telling another cycle's story while staying within the same mythological framework.Hopes for Originality and Expanding the MythDespite their concerns about rehashing familiar territory, both Meaghan and Arthur are holding out hope. They talked about wanting to see more of Derry itself, as a character, almost, rather than just another round of Pennywise antics. Stephen King has said before that Derry is a nexus of evil, and the hosts think it’s time that idea gets explored more deeply.Could Derry itself be the cause of all this horror? Is Pennywise just a symptom of something bigger? What if the town attracts evil rather than simply being haunted by it? These are the questions that the hosts hope the show will explore, especially if Bill Skarsgård’s role as Pennywise ends up being minimal.There was also some talk about what Pennywise even is: an alien, a primordial being, or both? They discussed the Ritual of Chüd, the cosmic horror elements like the Deadlights, and even drew comparisons to recent movies like Jordan Peele’s Nope, where horror and sci-fi blur together in unconventional ways.Final Thoughts and Nostalgia FeelsAs they wrapped up, Meaghan and Arthur reflected on their own experience seeing IT: Chapter Two in a double-feature drive-in, which added a unique atmosphere to an already intense film. They recognized that while the second movie didn’t hit quite as hard as the first, the cast and performances were strong enough to carry it through.They gave props to Andy Muschietti for his knack for working with child actors, a notoriously tough task, and mentioned how rare it is to find a full cast of young actors who can deliver emotional, believable performances. They compared it favorably to Stranger Things and mentioned how casting like that can really elevate a horror story.Ultimately, they’re optimistic. Even if IT Welcome to Derry ends up being a little repetitive, they’re still excited to see what it offers. They’re particularly hopeful that it goes beyond Pennywise and starts to explore what makes Derry such a hotbed of horror. They're also curious to hear what listeners think: are people still interested in this world, or is it time to move on?

  --------  

  26:36

  --------

  26:36

Więcej Sztuka podcastów

Trendy w podcaście Sztuka

O Fully-Booked: Literary Podcast